Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 329.

                                                          Instituted on     : 11.09.2014.

                                                          Decided on       : 13.07.2017.

Surender Singh s/o Late Sh.Dharam Singh R/o Village-Gijji, Teh. Sampla, Distt. Rothak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

M/s Satbir Furniture House, Railway Road, Near Kamla Talkies, Sampla, Distt. Rohtak through its Proprietor.

                                                ……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Krishan Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Virender Singh, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had approached the opposite party for purchase of furniture and mattress for the marriage of his daughter. The opposite party has supplied furniture and mattresses to the complainant and complainant had paid an amount of Rs.3000/- to the opposite party as cost of said mattresses but just after two months of the purchase the said mattresses have been damaged/cracked and are not able to use. After that complainant approached the opposite party and requested to replace the said mattresses but the opposite party did not pay any heed towards the request of complainant and has refused to replace the same by saying that he is not responsible for damage of his mattresses. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to replace the mattresses or to refund the price of mattresses alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          On notice opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that complainant had not purchased any mattresses from the opposite party. Opposite party had not issued any hand written bill/receipt to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied.  Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW3/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and has closed his evidence.

5.                          We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased mattresses from the opposite party and the alleged mattresses become cracked within short time of purchase and as such opposite party is liable to replace the same or to refund the price thereof. To prove his case complainant has placed on record copy of complaints Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and a hand written calculation of furniture items and its price. On the other hand contention of opposite party is that he had not sold the alleged items to the complainant and has also not issued any bill.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that simply on the basis of document Ex.C3 which is not a bill  and does not have any signatures or stamp of the opposite party. Hence the purchase of the mattresses from the opposite party by the complainant is not proved. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 1(2008)CPJ 207(NC) titled as Prakash Vs. Radheshyam Aggarwal & Ors. whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Complainant  not purchased anything, not consumer-Not entitled to any relief”.  In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that in the absence of any evidence, complainant failed to prove the fact that he is consumer of opposite party. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

8.                          Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

13.07.2017.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ……………………………..

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member

                                                          …………………………….

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.